1. Proton and Neutron Momentum Distributions in A=3 Asymmetric Nuclei PAC-42, July 30 th, 2014. Proposal PR12-13-012 Spokespersons: O. Hen (TAU), L. B. Weinstein (ODU), S. Gilad (MIT), W. Boeglin (FIU)

2. Momentum Distribution and Short-Range Structure of Nuclei 2

3. New Results on Heavy Asymmetric Nuclei np-pairs also dominate SRC in heavy asymmetric nuclei (CLAS Data-Mining). 3 O. Hen et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Science 346 614 (2014)

4. For Light Nuclei Correlations are Predicted to Win 4 n − VMC Calculations by R. Wiringa et al. (Phys. Rev. C 89, 024305 (2013)) Can we test this prediction ? What are the implications ?

5. Nuclear Momentum Distributions 5 d(e,e’p) data W. Boeglin et al. (Hall-A), PRL 107, 262501 (2011) Hen, Weinstein, Piasetzky, Miller, Sargsian, and Sagi, submitted to PRL 30-40% Model Dependent Corrections

6. Nuclear Momentum Distributions 66 d(e,e’) y-scaling data 30-40% finite Q 2 effects N. Fomin et al. (Hall-C), PRL 108, 092502 (2012)

7. Nuclear Momentum Distributions 7 Plain Wave Calculation Full Calculation Insensitive to theoretical uncertainties

8. 8 A=3 Nuclei: A Lab for Energy Sharing in Asymmetric Systems n(k) proton / neutron ratio Simple Nucleon Counting 3 He n n p p P P

9. 9 A=3 Nuclei: A Lab for Energy Sharing in Asymmetric Systems np-SRC: R=1 Transition Region R=2 Simple Nucleon Counting 3 He n(k) proton / neutron ratio n n p p P P 3 He

10. Tensor correlations shift more neutrons than protons to the high-momentum tail. 10 A=3 Nuclei: A Lab for Energy Sharing in Asymmetric Systems R=1 Transition Region R>2 n(k) proton / neutron ratio n n p p P P 3 He

11. Implication I: IsoSpin Dependent EMC Effect 11

12. Implication I: IsoSpin Dependent EMC Effect From M. Sargsian talk at the APS meeting 12

13. Implication II: Symmetry Energy equation-of-state of neutron stars, heavy-ion collisions, 13 Our measurement will complement the PREX results r-process nucleosynthesis, core-collapse supernovae, more… Relates to the energy change when replacing n with p. (symmetric, #n=#p) (pure neutron) Hen et al, PRC in press, nucl-ex:1409.0772

14. Implication III: Neutron Stars np-SRC pairs Create large high-momentum proton tail. Open ‘holes’ in the neutron Fermi sphere. Change the cooling rate via the direct URCA process. Change the spatial distribution. Neutron stars k F p n e 14 L. Frankfurt, M. Sargsian and M. Strikman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2991 (2008).

15. Extracting the nuclear momentum distributions: A(e,e’p) 15 Kinematical Factor e-p Cross Section Complications: Rescattering of the outgoing proton. Off-shell proton cross-section. Meson Exchange Currents (MEC). Delta production (i.e. IC).

16. The A=3 System: A Lab for Energy Sharing in Asymmetric Systems 3 He and 3 H are mirror nuclei – Neutron in 3 He = Proton in 3 H Two-ways to study the proton-to-neutron momentum distribution ratio in 3 He: – Measure the 3 He(e,e’p) / 3 He(e,e’n) ratio. [Need to measure neutrons.] – Measure the 3 He(e,e’p) / 3 H(e,e’p) ratio. [Need a Tritium target.] 16 n n n n P P n n p p P P 3 He 3H3H

17. 17 n n n n P P n n p p P P 3 He 3H3H The A=3 System: A Lab for Energy Sharing in Asymmetric Systems

18. Accessing the momentum distribution - FSI Rescattering minimized at small angles (verified for deuterium). Small angles => x B >1 => suppress MEC and IC effects. PWIA Calculation Full Calculation R = σ Full / σ PWIA 200 MeV/c 400 MeV/c 500 MeV/c Rescattering effects as a function of the angle between P miss and q. P miss [GeV/c]

19. The proposed measurement 19

20. The proposed measurement 20 (MeV/c) xE e (GeV) θeθep θpθp Time (days) 1001.153.4720.9 o 1.6148.7 o 1 3001.413.6420.4 o 1.3558.6 o 10 E beam = 4.4 GeV Q 2 = 2.0 GeV 2 I beam = 20 μA L ( 3 H) = 8×10 36 nucleons cm -2 s -1 Hall A has done many (e,e’p) measurements at similar kinematics and much higher luminosities. Very low luminosity: Negligible coincidence backgrounds. Low singles rates.

21. MCEEP Acceptance Simulations 21

22. MCEEP Count Rate Estimations 22

23. Expected Results I: Reduced cross-sections 23

24. Expected Results II: proton-to-neutron momentum distribution ratio 24

25. Expected Results III: Kinetic Energy Sharing 25

26. Summary 26

27. Backup Slides 27

28. 28 PAC40

29. Response to PAC40 29 Few-Body Systems – Transparencies: 7 - 15. EMC Effect – Transparencies: 16 - 18. Asymmetry Energy and Neutron Stars – Transparencies: 19 - 21. Comparison of low-and-high missing momenta – Transparencies: 12 - 15. Importance of 3 H- 3 He comparison – Transparencies: 7 - 11, 23 - 27.

30. 30

31. 31 O. Hen, W. J. Gao, B. A. Li, E. Piasetzy, and L. B. Weinstein, in preparation.

32. Minimizing d(e,e’p) Final State Interactions (FSI): choosing kinematics 32 θ nq = 35 o θ nq = 45 o θ nq = 75 o PWIA Full P miss (GeV/c) 0.1 0.5 Boeglin et al. (Hall-A Collaboration), PRL 107 (2011) 262501

33. Previously Measured d(e,e’p) Backgrounds and Rates 33 E in = 4.7 GeV, θ nq = 40 o, p miss = 0.5 GeV/c Q 2 = 2.1 (GeV/c) 2, θ e = 19.3 o θ p = 66.3 o p e = 3.97 GeV/c p p = 1.23 GeV/c Proton rates (T1): 1.6 kHz Electron rates (T3): 4.6 kHz Coincidence rate (T5): 4.3 Hz Corrected e-p Time of Flight From the 6 GeV d(e,e’p) measurement Negligible Random coincidence background Boeglin et al. (Hall-A), PRL 107 (2011) 262501

34. Previous Hall-A 3 He (e,e’p) measurements 34 3 He(e,e’p)d FSI dominant PWIA Full 3 He(e,e’p)np Dominated by FSI at large missing momentum Well described by calculation p m = 440 MeV/c p m = 620 MeV/c p m [MeV/c] E m [MeV] Data: Rvachev et al., PRL94 192302 ; Benmokhtar et al., PRL94 082305 Theory: Ciofi degli Atti and Kaptari, PRL95 052502 ; Alvioli et al., PRC81 021001 ; Laget, PLB609 49 (not shown)

35. Previous 3 H(e,e’p) measurements 35 A. Johansson (by himself!), PR136 (1964) 1030B. Low-Energy Measurement. No access to the momentum distribution

36. The Marathon Target Identical 25-cm sealed-cell gas target cells for H 2, D 2, T 2, 3 He I beam ≤ 20 μA 36 Target cells Solid targets CellThickness (mg/cm 2 ) Pressure (psi) Number density H2H2 554002 D2D2 1114002 T2T2 ~902002 3 He824001 Adopted From David Meekins

37. The Marathon Target 37 Open cell design allows a wide range of scattering angles Wall thickness 0.018” Al (120 mg/cm 2 ) Entrance and exit windows: 0.010” Al (65 mg/cm 2 ) The proton HRS will not see the cell windows Entrance window Adopted From David Meekins

38. The MARATHON Target 38 Target to be fabricated at JLAB Savanah River Site (SRS/SRNL) – Fill and recover T2 gas – Ship filled cell to JLAB – Formal statement of work (SOW) has been drafted – JLAB and SRS to perform additional studies on effects of T2 gas on Al 7075 alloy. SOW not complete. Design/Operation Plan – To be reviewed by both JLAB and SRS Adopted From David Meekins

39. The Target Cell 39 Design is complete – Made from Al 7075-7651 – Swagelok all metal valves and fittings – Extensive service in H2 at JLAB – All metal seals Specs: – T2 at ~200 psi fill pressure (1.1 kCi) – Max beam current 20 μA – Length 25 cm (~90 mg/cm 2 ) – Entrance window 0.254 mm thick – Exit window 0.279 mm thick – Side wall 0.45 mm thick Adopted From David Meekins

40. Complete Target Assembly 40 Cryostat Positioning system Target Stack ● Use 15K He from ESR to stabilize and cool the cells. ● Use the standard cryotarget cryostat for this Adopted From David Meekins

41. Modify the Current Hall A Target Mount target stack where normal cryotarget cells go Lift system remains the same Mounts in current scattering chamber Controls nearly identical to cryotarget Mount cells here Adopted From David Meekins

42. D(e,e’p) from Saclay (1981) 42 Large discrepancies at high-momentum (> 150 – 200 MeV/c) M. Bernheim et al., Nuclear Physics A 365, 349 (1981)

43. Systematic Uncertainties Based on previous Hall-A d(e,e’p) measurements at almost identical kinematics: [Boeglin et al. (Hall-A Collaboration), PRL 107, 262501 (2011)] Overall systematics uncertainties (~4%): – H(e,e’) cross-section (~2%) – Beam Charge (~1%) – Target Thickness (~1-2%) – Detection Efficiencies (~1%) [Only run-to-run variations do no cancel in the 3 He/ 3 H ratio] – Beam Energy (~1-2%, cancel in the 3 He/ 3 H ratio) Note: 2% target boiling effect is negligible for our beam current (20 uA vs. 100 uA) and gas target. Point-to-point systematic uncertainties (~2-3%): – Measured Kinematical variables for each bin. Note: 3 H/ 3 He (e,e’) ratios (MARATHON and x>2) are assumed to have a ~2% systematic uncertainty. 43